Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

          

Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Police target protesters at RNC convention
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 22 (view)
 
Police target protesters at RNC convention
Posted: 9/2/2008 9:53:16 AM
The harrassment and detainment of the protestors before they even participated in a protest is a topic that should be of grave concern for anyone who believes in our Constitution. It is not a crime to engage in free speech and protest, except the Bush administration has labeled it such. And the confiscation of the perma-bus is definitely connected as they are presuming that anyone participating in a "progressive" activity might be part of the protest as well. I see no way that this is an isolated incident. All the more reason we have to work to get Obama elected. Whatever reservations I had about him, this kind of story reminds me why we must make a change in who is leading our nation and it mustn't be McCain who will continue the repressive tactics Bush implemented.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 26 (view)
 
Hillary's speech at the convention
Posted: 8/27/2008 8:59:45 AM
Southern Lass, your characterization of the positions of Hillary and Obama and how they diverge are really off-base and don't reflect the truth. Let me give you a primer and correct your mistakes point by point:
1)Abortion - Obama and Clinton both believe in protecting a woman's right to choose; they both have hesitations about 2nd trimester abortion unless it is to protect the life of the mother. In other words - they are in unison. McCain, believes abortion should be illegal - the polar opposite of Obama and Clinton.

2) Crime - Obama and Clinton both believe we need penalties for serious drug crimes and other serious infractions; but they also focus on strengthening communities, offering services, job training, education to address crime before the "criminal" mind is made. McCain believes in building more prisons and that is the end of his view on crime.

3) Experience: Obama and Clinton both have spent over a decade doing grassroots political work, promoting education, job training, reducing crime in our cities. While Obama has less time in the Senate, in total he has more time in the congress than Hillary, but they are close in terms of direct experience as a legislator. McCain has experience but it is the wrong kind of experience. His experience is in promoting legislation that helps the wealthy and reduces opportunity for the poor - the exact opposite of Hillary and Barack.

4) War in Iraq - Both Clinton and Obama feel we made a terrible error in the war; Hillary was never for this war as you and others repeatedly mischaracterize her! She voted to authorize the President to take action if it became necessary - it was NEVER necessary - and she never specifically voted to initiate this war; McCain is Mr. "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" and was gun ho about Iraq and only has backpedaled a bit as a candidate. He is the opposite of both Democratic contenders.

5 and 6...whew, I'm tired of correcting your inaccuracies. Suffice it to say, you misrepresent both democratic candidates views, whether intentionally of through a lack of intellectual rigor I do not know. Your conclusion is patently false. The only option for an honest Clinton supporter is to vote for Obama. Casting a vote for McCain would be in opposition to all she stood for.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Hillary's speech at the convention
Posted: 8/27/2008 8:46:33 AM
About the PUMA's, folks are giving them too much credit. It is a small group of people from what I can deduce, only 50 at the convention out of 20,000. That should give you an idea of how fringe they are. Unfortunately the media ran with the story of the PUMAs and gave them more ground than they actually had. The Republicans also had an investment in the PUMA's looking larger and having a bigger impact, thus they fueled the narrative. I for example, got one of their emails right after Hillary conceded the primary and I signed their petition. Does that make me a PUMA? No. I was angry and wanted my voice heard, but during the past two months I saw the importance of backing my party rather than inflating the person and making a foolish choice. I don't think the PUMA's really had any purpose beyond being a presence at the convention. I predict they will quickly recede in importance.
Hillary certainly made it clear she wanted party unity and not to do so is to disrespect her and the platform she was promoting. Sorry, not meaning to veer from the basic thread too much.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Hillary's speech at the convention
Posted: 8/26/2008 8:26:37 PM
I was blown away by Hillary's speech...blown away. She did everything she needed to in order to convince her supporters that it was important to now support Obama. I thought the part where she talked about why she had run was a strategy that allowed her to take us on a journey where we revisited her campaign and then she led us to the conclusion that our support was for - not just Hillary the individual - but for the causes she championed. The only logical conclusion - which she clearly drew in the sand - was that we must support Obama who also stands for those same causes and values.

Those of us who supported her needed some homage paid to her campaign and needed her to create a linkage to Obama's. She certainly did that and gave the best speech of the convention thus far. She showed once again the brilliant and capable woman and politician she is. She was also gracious in offering such unequivocal support for Obama in the face of her loss in the primaries. Go Hillary!
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 85 (view)
 
I'm thinking of not voting this time around
Posted: 8/26/2008 12:04:51 PM
I can't urge people enough: please vote. It is your right and a privilege for which other people have died. It is not good enough to sit and whine about what wasn't fair in the primary. We have two clearly different choices and so much is at stake in our country that for those who love America, we must all have our voices heard. We cannot continue on the path W. has set us on and which McCain will certainly continue, in my opinion, so I urge you to vote for Obama, even if it is a bit distasteful. Anyone who refuses to vote should be ashamed of your lack of commitment to our democratic republic. Democracy is a two way street that requires participation. There is no excuse for not voting.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 34 (view)
 
Why cant Obama seem to attain the leads Kerry did?
Posted: 8/26/2008 11:59:08 AM
It is interesting that, thus far, even with all the new voters the dems have registered, that they can't leverage a more sizable lead. I agree that Kerry's lead had to do with his years of leadership in the Senate and he could run on his record. Obama just doesn't have much of a record to run on and is counting on the idea of "vision" and "hope" to carry him through. That boat just isn't going to float, not in the midwest or the south where people want to know, "where's the beef". Missouri is a prime example, the "show me" state. Voters here are very literal and want to see substance. They are not swayed by emotion except love of family and love of country. Obama has to show that he has substance and will take a stand on core issues that affect the voters. I want to be hopeful, but the fact that Obama doesn't yet have the kind of lead Kerry had doesn't bode well. Perhaps he is counting on ad-buys in the next two months to paint a picture that can sell. I am not so sure.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 18 (view)
 
The Democratic Convention 08
Posted: 8/26/2008 11:52:22 AM
I agree that Michelle was boring, although the content of her speech was alright. She just was kind of flat in her delivery (and if I read one more pundit referring to how she was dressed - positive or not - I'm gonna scream). I did like that she referenced the 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling as a result of Hillary's candidacy. It was classy to give her a shout out like that and Hillary certainly earned it (and by some computations actually did win the nomination were it not for the appalling resolution of Michigan and Florida's delegate count).

Like others, I was moved by Ted Kennedy. That man is a true American hero for all he has done during his time in the Senate, both for Massachusetts and for the country. It was touching to hear him promise to be in the Senate for the start of the January term. I teared up with the poignancy of the moment and the thought that he will not be with us one day in the not-too-distant future (even if you are a Kennedy, the body has its limits).

Was anyone here as underwhelmed by Pelosi as I was? I really had expected her to give a rousing speech and she failed utterly, reading her speech of the teleprompter with great stiffness and lack of true emotion. It was disappointing.

I must admit I jumped around and caught bits and pieces of other speeches. I caught enough of Jesse Jackson Jr. to note that he lacks his fathers' oratory skills. The commentators seemed to love him, but I fail to see the reason why. He attempted to inflect Martin Luther King into the evening, but I sure am not seeing anything similar between King and Obama, other than race. It is cloying to hear them mentioned in the same breath. Just my take on the event thus far.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 147 (view)
 
Obama picks Joe Biden for VP
Posted: 8/26/2008 11:42:17 AM
I have always respected Joe Biden as a legislator. As a matter of fact, in my mind, Biden is the better candidate of the two so it pains me to see him on the bottom of the ticket. Still, he brings a grasp of foreign policy that will serve Obama well and help him hit the ground running in terms of evaluating how to repair the damage Bush has done to our international reputation. I also think they are well matched in terms of social justice and domestic issues (as was Hillary). I hope that Biden's experience with the Clinton health care plan will help him push through a plan in an Obama administration. That along with ending the war in Iraq and addressing the return of fundamentalism in Afghanistan are critical issues in the coming years. Of course, Biden is more insightful and long-range in his view of our energy needs. It is essential that we overhaul our understanding of "energy security" to reflect the need for alternative sources.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Banned for Being Too Good
Posted: 8/26/2008 10:36:00 AM
Some folks here just don't get it: this isn't a competitive league, but one for beginners and others to learn the game, learn sportsmanship and have fun. In such a league a boy with this kind of fast ball could hurt someone. It isn't his fault, but this isn't the right place for him to play, not as a pitcher. Suggesting there is some insidious intent in making such a ruling is absurd. Let the boy play, but not pitch, or find a more competitive league. The safety of all the kids needs to be considered first and foremost.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 54 (view)
 
Do husband`s and fathers have constitutional rights like everyone else?
Posted: 8/24/2008 8:41:00 AM
When men can carry the child to term then they can decide to "keep" it and not abort. Until then, it is my decision as it is my body. While I may discuss it with a partner, the final decision is mine as I am the one who will have to carry it for nine months, and in all likelihood be the primary care giver after birth. It is off -topic, but I thought it was worth a comment.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 52 (view)
 
Do husband`s and fathers have constitutional rights like everyone else?
Posted: 8/23/2008 10:23:23 AM
Gotta pulse, your claims about "radical feminists" taking over the women's movement are wrong, bordering on paranoid. There is no well-organized movement, just different organizations working for equality in some particular arena. Feminists are as diverse as women are, and many women whose views would be considered feminist are scared to claim the title for fear that they will be rebuked by men like you.

If it is feminist to work to end the inequality of women in our social structures, including the devaluing of mothers and motherhood, then you should be all for it. Women being given equal opportunity and being valued for their contributions to society benefits us all. It doesn't imply inferiority of men or attempt to take away their rights. What happens in a particular relationship is a complex dynamic between two people. That a particular woman may hit her partner is wrong, but it doesn't nullify all the violence women experience in our lives, including rape, incest, and domestic violence. It remains true that women experience a disproportionate amount of violence and that fact doesn't negate incidents of violence against men.

But I suspect you don't want to hear the truth. You are too angry at women as a whole and would call us radical for merely standing up for ourselves. You have a big chip on your shoulder and seem to have a real anger issue. I don't envy the women you date.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 51 (view)
 
Clinton Rallies Planned for Convention
Posted: 8/17/2008 2:37:10 PM
The Clinton rallies are an important part of the political process. There was a real split in how people felt about the primary season and the Clinton supporters are angry. In a democracy they get to express that and use their leverage at the convention to whatever effect they can. That is part of the process - disparate groups leveraging themselves to make the platform and agenda for the future truly representational of the party. Certainly, Hillary is well-situated politically speaking and her speech should be rousing and is a precursor to her next Presidential campaign.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 163 (view)
 
The Democratic Party Will Heal In Time
Posted: 8/17/2008 2:21:20 PM
Going back to the original topic: Given the scheduling of both Bill and Hillary to speak at the convention and Obama agreeing to a roll call vote, it appears the healing is well underway. I think both Clintons will call for party unity. That doesn't mean that everyone will fall in line, but many will finally admit that the choice of Obama is the only clear choice for any democrat who believes in our country and wants what is best for it. After these last 7 years where the administration has all but shredded the Constitution and our precious democracy, we really must unite to see that someone is elected who can undo some of the damage.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 21 (view)
 
remember terrorism before 9-11?
Posted: 8/17/2008 2:15:41 PM
Before 9/11 we talked about terrorism without all the hyperbole. We didn't have the talk about "evil doers" and such, nor did we talk about entire nation's as responsible. The enemy was clear and it was the people who committed such acts and the groups that trained them. Terrorism was about an event and how to prevent future such events. Now we have the "war on terror" and the "war without end". We used to be much more rational and analytical about how to address keeping our country safe from terrorists. It sickens me that way we have redefined the terms of this conversation in order to justify our invasion of other nations.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 125 (view)
 
interesting old theory on what causes homosexuality
Posted: 8/14/2008 8:21:56 AM
No, lesserguy, witnessing and abortion doesn't change one's opinion. I went with a friend for support and it was her free choice and I had no ambivalence about being there. No, I do not see it as infanticide, which would have to involve an already born infant and your attempt to categorize it as such is pure hyperbole.

I would not support aborting a child because of sexual orientation, but I would still support a woman's right to choose in the end. It isn't up to me unless it is my body and that goes for you and other men who would dictate what a woman does. You have a choice: get snipped, use birth control, or be celibate. Those are your choices. After that, even if there were a genetic marker for homosexuality, it is a woman's choice what happens inside her body.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 41 (view)
 
Do husband`s and fathers have constitutional rights like everyone else?
Posted: 8/13/2008 9:15:16 AM
Betterguy, you clearly have no critical thinking skills and have a very personal agenda that defies reasoning. The fact that you site an anti-feminist screed and can't find an objective critical analysis of said phenomenon says it all. Go ahead with your narrow minded misogyny...flame away. I'm done with your trolling. You aren't worthy the air I breathe.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 4 (view)
 
political prisoner camp in Denver for the DNC...Gitmo on the Platte.
Posted: 8/13/2008 9:11:18 AM
This is ridiculous. We have lost the right to peacefully protest, to even voice our opinions in public. Thanks to George Bush for unofficially tanking the Constitution making it possible for law enforcement to do the same. It started with "free speech zones", which made it clear that you were denied free speech any where but those zones. THey must think we are as stupid as they are and wouldn't notice them shredding our constitutional rights. Nope, we are paying close attention. This latest move, in creating holding pens for protesters may lead to bigger protests than were being planned. If I had the time I'd be tempted to go make my voice heard outside the Convention.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 40 (view)
 
Do husband`s and fathers have constitutional rights like everyone else?
Posted: 8/13/2008 9:00:00 AM

Feminist groups have a very long record of skewing statistics to further their hateful agenda .These are the same groups that promote the sorts of laws in question.


There is no deliberate skewing of statistics nor do feminists have an agenda of hate. It is an agenda that promotes love - loving, safe families free of domestic violence. It is you who are attempting to use rhetoric that promotes hate. Simply providing accurate statistics that capture the true impact of domestic violence is not an anti-male agenda. There are also men working to end domestic violence, several whom have been dear friends of mine while they worked in a local agency that offers counseling to men who are batterers. There is nothing hateful in their agenda either. The simply hold men accountable for any physical aggression, threats, intimidation or coercion. Until men own their responsibility for their own aggression, domestic violence will continue.

From the men on this thread I can see we have a long, long way to go.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 39 (view)
 
Do husband`s and fathers have constitutional rights like everyone else?
Posted: 8/13/2008 8:54:47 AM
Misandrist, ROTFLMAO

Right, pointing out that violence against women is serious and prevalent makes me a man-hater. If that is the best you've got...you got nothin'! Oh and you can get 2005 statistics here: http://www.ncadv.org/resources/Statistics_170.html
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 35 (view)
 
Do husband`s and fathers have constitutional rights like everyone else?
Posted: 8/13/2008 6:39:59 AM
My point, to those not quite bright enough to glean it on their own is that women are far more often the victims of domestic violence, rape, and partner-murder. In light of the incredibly high number of women who are victims it is disingenuous to cry foul over orders of protection.

No doubt there are instances when a woman has used the orders to get back at a spouse - there are screwed up people in the world. But it still is an important tool in helping safeguard women and children who have experienced violence from a partner. And, by the way, a man can get one as well, so that should even the playing field for those who think it is some big sexist plot by feminazis - as I have been called here.

Also, to the poster who called me a feminazi - it is not merely a neutral word used to call women sexist. It is a degrading, over-the-top sexist term, vile and hateful and he who uses it is the one who is sexist, not the woman who is targeted. I'm glad I could clear that up for you. Now you can go look up the word misogynist for that is what your hateful screeds reveal you to be. It's not very pretty.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 34 (view)
 
Do husband`s and fathers have constitutional rights like everyone else?
Posted: 8/13/2008 6:32:31 AM
At least deal with reality if you guys are going to discuss domestic violence. Here are some statistics from 1998. They clearly show the prevalence of domestic violence and if you actually read the statistics you will see that women are most often the victims. It is ludicrous bordering on insane to promote the idea that men are the victims of orders of protection. Give me a frackin' break!

Prevalence of Domestic Violence:
• Estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend per year 1 to three million women who are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend per year.2

• Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime.3

• Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey.4

• Nearly 25 percent of American women report being raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some time in their lifetime, according to the National Violence Against Women Survey, conducted from November 1995 to May 1996. 5

• Thirty percent of Americans say they know a woman who has been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year.6

• In the year 2001, more than half a million American women (588,490 women) were victims of nonfatal violence committed by an intimate partner.7

• Intimate partner violence is primarily a crime against women. In 2001, women accounted for 85 percent of the victims of intimate partner violence (588,490 total) and men accounted for approximately 15 percent of the victims (103,220 total).8

• While women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner.9

• In 2001, intimate partner violence made up 20 percent of violent crime against women. The same year, intimate partners committed three percent of all violent crime against men.10

• Women of all races are about equally vulnerable to violence by an intimate.11

• Male violence against women does much more damage than female violence against men; women are much more likely to be injured than men.12

• The most rapid growth in domestic relations caseloads is occurring in domestic violence filings. Between 1993 and 1995, 18 of 32 states with three year filing figures reported an increase of 20 percent or more.13

• Women are seven to 14 times more likely than men to report suffering severe physical assaults from an intimate partner.14

• The health-related costs of rape, physical assault, stalking, and homicide by intimate partners exceed five point eight billion dollars each year (CDC study).

Domestic Homicides:
• On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 40 men were killed by an intimate partner.15

• Women are much more likely than men to be killed by an intimate partner. In 2000, intimate partner homicides accounted for 33.5 percent of the murders of women and less than four percent of the murders of men.16

Health Issues:
• About half of all female victims of intimate violence report an injury of some type, and about 20 percent of them seek medical assistance.17

• Thirty-seven percent of women who sought treatment in emergency rooms for violence-related injuries in 1994 were injured by a current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend.18

Domestic Violence and Youth:
• Approximately one in five female high school students reports being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner.19

• Eight percent of high school age girls said "yes" when asked if "a boyfriend or date has ever forced sex against your will."20

• Forty percent of girls age 14 to 17 report knowing someone their age who has been hit or beaten by a boyfriend.21

• During the 1996-1997 school year, there were an estimated 4,000 incidents of rape or other types of sexual assault in public schools across the country.22

Domestic Violence and Children:
• In a national survey of more than 6,000 American families, 50 percent of the men who
frequently assaulted their wives also frequently abused their children.23

• Slightly more than half of female victims of intimate violence live in households with children under age twelve.24

• Studies suggest that between three point three and ten million children witness some form of domestic violence annually.25

Rape:
• Three in four women (76 percent) who reported they had been raped and/or physically
assaulted since age 18 said that a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, or date
committed the assault.26

• One in five (21 percent) women reported she had been raped or physically or sexually assaulted in her lifetime.27

• Nearly one-fifth of women (18 percent) reported experiencing a completed or attempted rape at some time in their lives; one in 33 men (three percent) reported experiencing a completed or attempted rape at some time in their lives.28

• In 2000, 48 percent of the rapes/sexual assaults committed against people age twelve and over were reported to the police.29

• In 2001, 41,740 women were victims of rape/sexual assault committed by an intimate partner.30

• Rapes/sexual assaults committed by strangers are more likely to be reported to the police than rapes/sexual assaults committed by "non-strangers," including intimate partners, other relatives and friends or acquaintances. Between 1992 and 2000, 41 percent of the rapes/sexual assaults committed by strangers were reported to the police.

During the same time period, 24 percent of the rapes/sexual assaults committed by an intimate were reported.31
Stalking:

Seventy-eight percent of stalking victims are women. Women are significantly more likely than men (60 percent and 30 percent, respectively) to be stalked by intimate partners.32

• Eighty percent of women who are stalked by former husbands are physically assaulted by that partner and 30 percent are sexually assaulted by that partner.33

Foot notes to above statistics:
1 U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends,
and Girlfriends, March 1998.
2 The Commonwealth Fund, Health Concerns Across a Woman’s Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women’s Health, May 1999.
3 Heise, L., Ellsberg, M. and Gottemoeller, M. Ending Violence Against Women. Population Reports, Series L, No. 11., December 1999.
4 The Commonwealth Fund, Health Concerns Across a Woman’s Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women’s Health, May 1999.
5 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and The National Institute of Justice, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, July 2000.
6 Lieberman Research Inc., Tracking Survey conducted for The Advertising Council and the Family Violence Prevention Fund, July – October 1996.
7 Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003.
8 Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003.
9 U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends,
and Girlfriends, March 1998.
10 Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003.
11 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Violence Against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey, August 1995.
12 Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles, Physical Violence in American Families, 1990.
13 Examining the Work of State Courts, 1995: A National Perspective from the Court Statistics Project. National Center for
the State Courts, 1996.
14 National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, November 1998.
15 Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003.
16 Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003.
17 National Crime Victimization Survey, 1992-96; Study of Injured Victims of Violence, 1994.
18 U.S. Department of Justice, Violence?Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments, August 1997.
19 Jay G. Silverman, PhD; Anita Raj, PhD; Lorelei A. Mucci, MPH; and Jeanne E. Hathaway, MD, MPH, "Dating Violence
Against Adolescent Girls and Associated Substance Use, Unhealthy Weight Control, Sexual Risk Behavior, Pregnancy, and
Suicidality," Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 286, No. 5, 2001.
20 The Commonwealth Fund Survey of the Health of Adolescent Girls, November 1997.
21 Children Now/Kaiser Permanente poll, December 1995.
22 U.S. Department of Education, Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996-1997.
23 Strauss, Murray A, Gelles, Richard J., and Smith, Christine. 1990. Physical Violence in American Families; Risk Factors
and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
24 U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses,
Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, March 1998.
25 Carlson, Bonnie E. (1984). Children's observations of interpersonal violence. Pp. 147-167 in A.R. Roberts (Ed.) Battered
women and their families (pp. 147-167). NY: Springer. Straus, M.A. (1992). Children as witnesses to marital violence: A
risk factor for lifelong problems among a nationally representative sample of American men and women. Report of the
Twenty-Third Ross Roundtable. Columbus, OH: Ross Laboratories.
26 U.S. Department of Justice, Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the
National Violence Against Women Survey, November 1998.
27 The Commonwealth Fund, Health Concerns Across a Woman’s Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women’s Health, May 1999.
28 National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,, Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of
Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, November 1998.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Endangered Species Act in Trouble
Posted: 8/12/2008 10:32:08 AM
Here is additional info I found at the Washington Post:
" But Dale Hall, who directs the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the move would not apply to major federal projects and would give his agency more time to focus on the most critically endangered species rather than conducting reviews of projects that pose little threat."

I think that puts too positive a spin on it. I wish I could believe the above quote, but there is no reason to believe that this wouldn't allow us to greenlight projects that are going to have a negative impact on critical species and habitat. Bush has been trying to water down the Endangered Species Act his entire administration. My only hope is that anything he changes at this late date will be undone as soon as Obama is in office. He has already said he would review any Executive orders Bush signed and reverse any that seem extreme and partisan. Let's hope he has an environmental conscience as well and will look closely at various Bush policies that have been destructive to the environment and critical species.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 25 (view)
 
Uncle Sucker and the Iraq budget surplus
Posted: 8/12/2008 9:06:47 AM
I think we do have some responsibility to stabilize it; on the other hand, when we removed Saddam we removed a leader who was keeping things under control and we went in with no idea of how to keep the peace among the different tribal factions. I'm not sure we are even able to stabilize it, that's how much of a mess we've made.

Still, I see nothing wrong with using some of their own revenue to rebuild. Yes, we are the one that destroyed it and we are the reason their infrastructure is so shabby right now. I get that. But I see no harm in using the country's revenue to help rebuild. Hell, we can't afford the cost of repairing it. WE are teetering on an economic collapse here as it is.

In addition, we need to take our hat and leave ASAP, knowing we have made the world a more dangerous place because of our ill-considered war on a country that wasn't involved in terrorist activities. We blew it and big. We should be hiding our proverbial head in the proverbial sand out of shame for what we have wrought.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 1 (view)
 
Endangered Species Act in Trouble
Posted: 8/12/2008 8:54:04 AM
Under a proposed rule by the Bush administration, new projects that affect habitat `would not have to be reviewed by an independent, scientific panel, such as Fish and Wildlife Services. Instead, the governmental agencies proposing the project would make it's own determination and the public would only have a 30 day period to comment on the project, however the final decision rests with the agency. Thus a highway or damn project would not require an environmental impact statement by an independent body. Instead it would simply require the highway department or whomever is responsible to state the environmental impact is not serious.

Excuse me...fox guarding the hen house! This would be a disaster for at-risk species and reek havoc on the environment. I don't know how Congress could allow this to become the rule of law. Oh, actually, I do. First, Bush is stating it as a "rule" which means it doesn't have to be voted on (I think), hence he is once again making himself above the law. Secondly, were Congress to have a chance to vote on this, many of them are in beholden to private sector interests that would benefit from such a law.

This makes my blood boil.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 110 (view)
 
Edwards screwing around on wife...No VP for him!
Posted: 8/10/2008 9:14:54 PM
strongdad, the kid is 5 months old and the affair ended in 2006 when he told his wife about it. No way it is his kid and he has said he would be willing to have a paternity test. The woman is not willing. Tells me she knows it is not his kid but is the love-child of Andrew Young whose name is on the birth certificate. She sounds like a total kook. Why do these men always go for the crazy women? Don't answer...I don't really care to know. ;-)

In any case, I thought it was interesting that Edwards chose not to have Elizabeth with him for the interview because he said she wasn't responsible, he was the one who was entirely responsible and should face the media on his own. I actually thought that showed some integrity as it always irks me that the men do their mea culpa with their disgraced wives standing by their sides. How disrespectful. At least Edwards respects his wife enough not to put her in that situation and to face the music alone.

Meanwhile...this story is boring and unimportant. There is actual news to be absorbed that has some weight to it, like Russia invading Georgia. So may we get back to our regularly scheduled program...
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 23 (view)
 
Do husband`s and fathers have constitutional rights like everyone else?
Posted: 8/10/2008 8:54:40 PM
There sure are a few misogynist on this thread. No wonder they are still single as their hatred of women just oozes out of their pores (directed to evilside and others). But I must say I feel satisfied any time I can get a rise out of a woman-hating male and am called a feminazi. It means I have spoken truth to those who fear it and their only recourse is name-calling. These, by the way, are not the type of men whose opinions would ever matter nor would I give them two shakes were I to meet them in real life. Of course, what did I expect given the premise of the thread. Yet it does gall me that evilside would dare to insinuate that those of us who disagree have no place on this thread. You should take your own advise and shut the hell up.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 79 (view)
 
Edwards screwing around on wife...No VP for him!
Posted: 8/9/2008 6:39:12 PM
You can hear the Edwards interview on ABC's Nightline. I listened to the entire twenty minute interview I respect Edwards for his honesty and I don't think less of him. AS a matter of fact, the way he is handling this shows that he is a man of great character who made a mistake. This is ultimately between him and Elizabeth. Those who would judge him prima-facia need to listen to his interview, but more importantly they need to focus on their own lives.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Do husband`s and fathers have constitutional rights like everyone else?
Posted: 8/9/2008 6:33:28 PM
loonytunz, you are way off-based. I've worked for 4 domestic violence agencies and have seen the damage first hand. It is disingenuous of you to imply men are abused with the same frequency as women. It just isn't true. It has to do with the inequities in many areas including income, that leave women dependent on their abusers. Over 90 percent of women murdered are murdered by a spouse or partner. The statistic for men is only 5% and many of those are cases where the woman has been victimized and strikes back.

You can make ignorant statements as much as you want, but you are not telling the truth about the prevalence of violence against women. Your small-mindedness and sexism will not allow you to discuss this reasonably and I shall not engage you again.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 4 (view)
 
How do you feel about PETA's new ad comparing Tim McLean's murder to killing animals for food?
Posted: 8/8/2008 11:51:57 AM
There was a point in time when I supported PETA, but that was long ago. I am all for ethical treatment of animals and less consumption of meat. I, myself, am primarily vegetarian and try to only eat free-range chicken eggs and buy only cruelty free products when given a choice. But as PETA has taken more dubious stands I just can't support them.

In recent years they have "saved" stray dogs, only to immediately put down pits and pit mixes because they feel the only way to end the cruelty to them is to eliminate the breed. As the owner of an extremely gentle pit-mix I am appalled.

THis latest stand on the murder is just too disturbing. The more fringe they make themselves they less they can advocate effectively for necessary changes.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 22 (view)
 
Fat Princess
Posted: 8/6/2008 1:33:53 PM
varrtyke, how disingenuous of you to behave as if it is a level playing field and objectification of men is as big a problem as the objectification of women. I don't know any women who have a narrow a range of acceptible-looking as the men I have known. THat doesn't mean it can't happen, but the men are genetically the more visually cued. There are some men who have worked on unlearning their conditioning so they can truly value women. I suggest you work on it as you show an appalling lack of awareness. I suppose it was to be expected that some man would twist this so that it is men who are the ones offended. Yeah, right, this game proves that men are oppressed...give me a fricking break. This issue is about a specific game that is demeaning to women and finds them beyond rescue once they eat too much. I would suggest that most of us aren't sitting around waiting for men like you to rescue us, nor do we want it. Really...don't rescue me. I prefer my life without men like you in it. Give me intelligent women and men any day and I am happy and fulfilled.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Do husband`s and fathers have constitutional rights like everyone else?
Posted: 8/6/2008 1:23:59 PM
Restraining orders have played an important role in preventing some domestic violence. Both people involved appear before the judge and cite any evidence they have within two weeks of filing. While any law can be taken advantage of by unscrupulous people, these domestic restraining orders evolved out of a recognition that women are frequently victims of domestic violence. The statistic is that one in three women will be a victim in their lifetime. Let's not put a "men's rights" spin on this. Men who behave responsibly have a right to access to their children and homes. Men who are violent deserve to be brought before a judge and their families kept safe.

While these orders don't stop the most extreme abusers, many of whom will kill or seriously injure a partner despite the order, they do serve as a deterrent for others. When men stop being violent to their partners we will stop needing orders of protection. The first step is to recognize the problem. You sir, in posting this, reveal that you don't, so you can start with that.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 20 (view)
 
'Greenshirt' youths urged to inform on eco-crimes
Posted: 8/6/2008 8:51:13 AM
varrtyke, I research and read plenty. I happen to disagree with your interpretation and value system. I liked the quotes you offer and align closely with the mentality they promote. We need to recognize we are part of a global community and the environmental crisis is one we all share equally. I happen to think anyone who doesn't see that fact is blind, ignorant or both so I shall depart from this thread and find more reality-based conversations. This thread isn't worth my time.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 18 (view)
 
'Greenshirt' youths urged to inform on eco-crimes
Posted: 8/5/2008 8:47:41 PM
varrtyke, surely you jest! If your comment is serious then there is no amount of reasoned discourse I can offer will help you see reality. Wow, all of you who are fearful about children paying attention to environmental issues need a big dose of reality. Paranoid much?
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 14 (view)
 
'Greenshirt' youths urged to inform on eco-crimes
Posted: 8/5/2008 8:49:34 AM
Wow, we take a good education project and turn it into something insidious. So now you folks think it is "bad" to make children aware of the need to protect the environment? Are you all a bunch of right wingers or what? If this has you up in arms, you aren't paying attention to what is going on in the world at large, whether it be politics, war, or the environment. I'm sick of a bunch of less-educated people trying to make Al Gore out to be the boogie man. Stop breeding so many people (this goes especially to the industrialized nations) and we won't have such a problem. The size population the planet can comfortable carry is being quickly overrun, especially by people who think they are entitled to have as many toys and "things" as they can afford. Why not teach the kids to be more responsible than their parents. They and their kids will be ashamed of what we have done to the world.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 89 (view)
 
Never married female, no children, early 40's - what's wrong here?
Posted: 8/2/2008 2:17:57 PM
I am 49 and have never married nor had children. If I'd met the right guy I would have wanted to raise a child, but I wasn't willing to pick the wrong guy just to become a mom. And I never met a guy that was right enough who was ready to settle down with me and I with him.

Do I have issues? No more than your average person, and fewer than a lot of others. Having not met a man for the long-term I chose not to be a single mom. I'd still like to meet a man, but as I said, the right man for me.

Am I too picky? To some I would be to others not. My point is that you can't judge what someone's issues are or whether they are able to be in an intimate relationship based on the fact that they haven't been married. I consider myself wise not to have focused on making a marriage with someone where the signs were there we weren't good for one another. A lot of people settle and all relationships require compromise, but for the people I met the compromises were too great. It really has a lot to do with the luck of the draw, the people you meet, whether you are open when you meet a particular person, and whether your career choices and personal choices allow you the time and energy to date.

I can honestly say, I was very busy helping friend's raise two daughters. I spent almost every weekend at their home, being with the family. Carol often commented that I wasn't going to meet a man while I was sitting cuddled on their couch with the girls. My response was that, having dated in my 20's and early thirties, I knew what a crap-shoot it was and I wouldn't miss out on quality time with the girls for anything. They have brought such joy and meaning to my life...more than any number of casual dates hoping to meet one that would stick. Who is to say if I would have found it. In any case, I wouldn't trade my time intimately involved with children and family for anything less fulfilling. That really is my story and if a man finds it off-putting, I could care less.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 127 (view)
 
feeling insecure naked......
Posted: 8/2/2008 1:19:49 PM
I keep coming back to this thread because it is encouraging to see that not all men judge women's physical appearance as harshly as some do. I actually broke off a connection with a guy after 2 dates because he was so attractive, and he seemed pretty focused on looks, and I just felt he wouldn't sustain interest in me if we got naked together. More, to the point, I just didn't feel I could be comfortable enough to get naked with him. So I told him we didn't click in the way I thought we needed to to continue dating.

Now, some of you will say that it was my limitations, not his, that led me to that conclusion; that perhaps is true to some extent. However, he talked about his "good" and "bad" side and his receding hairline bothering him and how he was in a battle against aging and didn't want to accept aging and death. Maybe he wouldn't have judged me as harshly, but I suspect he would have. I just didn't want to deal with a rejection and so I deflected the situation.

In reality, there are guys in their 50's who still want a woman with a "hot" bod, and they define hot as thin and toned. There are others who don't mind a woman softening as she ages and find the interaction between and the hope of getting naked is the turn-on, despite a bodies "flaws" (even if they admire women who still have those other kinds of bodies). There is another category of men that don't even give it much thought and just revel in being with a smart, kind, fun woman.

For me to be comfortable, and attract a guy, he has to be in the last two categories. I have the intelligence, wit, and enthusiasm to be a great partner to the right man. Now I have to find him, and I have to recognize it when I find him and not let my own insecurities get in the way.

That leads to a bigger issue, not the way men feel about us, but the way we feel about ourselves. Men find women sexy if the woman feels sexy. Women tend to feel sexy if we think we look good "enough", a word that has great variations in meaning. The challenge as an older woman is one we all have to face. We have to develop a solid enough core of security and self-confidence so that we don't allow the realities of an aging body stop us from getting out there and having fun.

Men may have this issue, but I suspect it is a greater issue with women, as most of us have really struggled at times to meet male-defined criteria for attractiveness. Now guys, don't jump all over me. I am talking about a patriarchal culture that exalts all that is masculine and devalues a lot that is related to being female, and rigidly judges our worth by our attractiveness. Not all men do this, I know. But, enough do and it starts affecting women when they are little girls wanting approval and wanting to be "good enough". Advertising and television teach us what it takes to be "beautiful". It is a myth, but I don't know a single woman who has entirely escaped the myth and who hasn't had to work hard to feel good about herself. (actually, I know one, but she was raised in India, so I guess I am talking about white, western culture).

So here I am at 49 finding it harder to take off the pounds that have crept up, never knowing that the weight I was at 39 would seem like a great weight to be again. If only I'd appreciated myself more and worried less!. The reality is, although I am exercising and eating healthy and less, I may never see that weight. And cultural messages abound that say I am not desirable or deserving of love at this weight. It is insane, but once again I have to answer those voices and love myself enough to act as if I believe I am worthy, even on days I don't feel like it. It is a hard thing to do, and I don't know how many guys understand the complex psych0-dynamic that goes on with a lot of women about their weight and desirability, but let me tell you... it ain't easy!

I am, like most women, trying to love myself as I am while still trying to improve (even if the goalpost has been moved). Meanwhile, regarding getting naked...I'd better be feeling some emotional regard for you and from you or I'm not going there.

Thank you all for letting me put this out there. I've been processing it for many months now and it helps to not have to hide it in shame, but bring such thoughts into the light of day.
Peace
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 36 (view)
 
What is it with 50+ women and wanting to stay single???
Posted: 8/2/2008 12:49:34 PM
I don't agree that 50+women necessarily want to stay single any more than want to be married. I think some women want to be married and others not. What I think is true is that by the age of 50 women are done with all the bullsh*t of being in relationships that don't really satisfy and nourish them emotionally. Some would rather be single than take care of someone who can't take care of himself, or would rather not pick up after someone else, or listen to his bad jokes, or whatever character "defects" annoy her. It is easier to tolerate anyone when there is the right amount of distance.

Also, making a relationship work takes work, and women tend to be the ones who work harder at maintaining a relationship, and sometimes we are just tired of working.

On the other hand, some of us wish we could be married in a mutually satisfying relationship with enough compatibility, enough time for "us" and enough time apart pursuing separate interests. Finding it is difficult and it interferes with just enjoying the life we have, which may be why some women choose singleness and solitude and an independent life.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Fat Princess
Posted: 8/2/2008 9:21:47 AM
The implication is that once you are "fat" you are beyond rescue, too big to be rescued. The implication in the "real" world is too obvious. Prince Charming - whom we all should want to rescue us - will not do so if we are too fat. It is sexist on two points, one, that we SHOULD want a prince to RESCUE us, as if we can't lead meaningful and full lives without him. Secondly, that our value and worth is based on our size. This is really so obvious, yet many of you don't get it. It is easier to knock your stereotype of what "feminists" and what they do and think than to address sexism. Whether you are female or male, if you think this game doesn't hurt anyone, you are being blind to your own internal sexism which is allowing you to see this as normative. I hope someone reading this will think twice.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 10 (view)
 
US Considered Ways to Provoke War with Iran
Posted: 8/1/2008 10:30:57 AM
Hersh's sources have been reliable and he is well-respected for getting insider's information that others can't get. The news media has always relied on inside sources. I guess when you are mad that your guys are bordering insane in their schemes to grab more power you have to grasp at straws and attack the messenger. Makes sense, doesn't make it right, but makes sense.

These kinds of strategy sessions where obscene things are considered are routine in this administration, and if my recollection is correct, they often are in the Vice President's office (or should we stop with the ruse and just call him the President?). I won't speculate on 9/11, but I will say this attempt to provoke a war to serve their own ends is insane. I don't know if they will allow Bush's term to end, especially given McCain's poor showing, without provoking Iran one way or another. It makes me sick!
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Fat Princess
Posted: 8/1/2008 10:15:49 AM
I think the game is mean-spirited and sexist, plain and simple. I'm fairly sure they wouldn't create one with a fat prince - no, but with a fat princess it is funny to people. It is denigrating to women, to larger women and those who have eating issues. There is nothing fun or funny about this game. Those who think there undoubtedly do so because of internalized sexism. I hope Sony gets so much pressure that they are forced to ditch the game. I, for one, will be writing and calling them and I'm sure others will as well. Yes, feminists are mad, and any self-respecting woman would be. Fellows, you need to develop a conscience to help you know the difference between right and wrong. This is wrong~
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Gays in Military - up for review
Posted: 7/31/2008 1:33:36 PM
thank you, smuggler...I do have something to be proud of, at least three things: my tolerance, compassion and keen intelligence. They serve me well and allow me to interact with a wide range of people.

I accept diversity and support gays and lesbians because they are an oppressed minority and it is the right thing to do. You obviously have different beliefs and I have challenged you on a lack of tolerance and compassion. I didn't attack you, but pointed out what was implicit in your comments.

Homophobia is insidious and rears it's head many different ways, one of which is in the attitude that by asking not to be oppressed gays are asking for special rights. That is a total fabrication on the part of those who spew such rhetoric and it is apparent to anyone who is relatively aware.

My compassion and tolerance lead me to speak out when there is an injustice and I am very proud of this aspect of my personality (in other words, your denigrating words do not relate to nor hurt me at all).
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 54 (view)
 
What is your real goal for dating?
Posted: 7/31/2008 1:27:01 PM
If I werent' in the midst of a job search I think my goal is first to try to meet a new man every couple of weeks for a casual get-together until someone comes along where I want to invest time specifically in getting to know him and him, me. I think you have to set a goal to meet new people otherwise chores, errands, friends fill all your time and there is no space set aside for a wonderful partner to wander into.

Next, I don't have a lot of patience for casual dating, so my goal would be to find someone where there is enough compatibility, attraction, enjoyment and respect that we could explore being "in a relationship". The catch-22 is that you have to date to get there, lol.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 98 (view)
 
whats your biggest fear
Posted: 7/31/2008 1:22:06 PM
My biggest fear is that I will let fear stop me from taking risks and truly living my life. I'm not afraid of a specific "thing", more a way of perceiving that can influence all your decisions.

Lately I am feeling afraid that I won't get to really see the world, travel abroad and experience other cultures. I've never been with a partner that wanted to do that and for one reason or another haven't wanted to travel alone. I think it would be a tragedy to live my life never having stepped outside of western culture. I read a lot which expands my consciousness, but it is different to go and experience the rest of the world for yourself.

Dam*...I better go and plan a trip, lol.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 18 (view)
 
India: Everything Gets Worse With Coca-Cola
Posted: 7/31/2008 9:36:47 AM
Telsa...The Corporation is a very good film, thanks for reminding me. I will try to see it again. I rented it at the movie store, but here is a link where you can stream it online for free: http://freedocumentaries.org/film.php?id=102

Really worth watching if people are interested in this subject. It is about the rise of the corporation as we know it today, how insidious it is, how the corporation became a "person" and it's rights displaced the rights of all other people. The people interviewed really know their stuff. I'm going to watch it again!
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Gays in Military - up for review
Posted: 7/31/2008 9:34:59 AM
o76923, my compliments on your efforts to clarify the issue. The poster you address just isn't going to get it. Instead he is going to claim he is being singled out and that gays want something special. It is impossible to reason with his faulty way of thinking, mostly because he isn't actually putting forth rational ideas, but is attempting to justify his homophobia. Yep, homophobia it is, an just like racism or sexism, it is very hard to get someone to change a core value when it is entrenched in hater. Oh...now he'll say that I said he is a "hater" in an effort to deflect the real issue. People who promote an agenda of hate and intolerance always claim they are the ones being persecuted. It just defies any rationality, but you can't talk someone out of their feelings with hate. I don't know that I will address his comments again but will use my energy where the discourse is based on real rationality. I have a low tolerance level for intolerance, lol.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 4 (view)
 
McCain says Obama is just a celebrity
Posted: 7/31/2008 9:16:25 AM
McCain's ad is backfiring. All over the media he is being criticized for looking hot-tempered and immature with this ad. He is really losing his grip and getting desperate to stop the hemorrhage of voters. McCain may be so far down come September that there won't be enough ad buys in the world to turn it around. (yep, that's actually how you spell hemorrhage - I looked it up)
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Gays in Military - up for review
Posted: 7/30/2008 8:59:56 PM
Smuggler, you aren't making sense. It is the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that is the issue. Were gays allowed to serve without fear of being "discovered" there would be no issue. I repeat there would be no issue. You are making it an issue by proclaiming that other people should live in fear and secrecy so that you won't have to feel some kind of discomfort around them. Man, deal with your discomfort, already. I assure you, gay boys don't want you; they want other gay men. This is all about your fear, anxiety, discomfort but your illogical and emotional reaction should not be the basis of law or government policies. It is a private issue for you to deal with with your therapist. Meanwhile, gays and lesbians should be able to live their lives without secrecy.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 11 (view)
 
Gays in Military - up for review
Posted: 7/30/2008 3:16:36 PM
Thanks for reposting the link edisto. The former poster should think twice about getting testy with other posters when it is his own ability to assimilate the information provided which is the problem

I went back and listened to the interview and found the name of the group that conducted the research. It is the William's Institute and here is a link to their site:
http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/home.html

It's amazing what you can find out in the space of 30 seconds with google search. Perhaps he should try it.

I imagine the next criticism we will hear is that the Institute specifically does research on sexual orientation so they can't be trusted. Doing research specifically for a topic should not disqualify one to then report the research, so let's not even go there.

The point is simple, let me break it down:
1. Gays already serve in the military at all levels
2. Their sexual orientation has not interfered with their ability to serve
3. "Don't ask, don't tell" is a discriminatory policy that adversely affects gays and lesbians
4. The policy also has led to discharges for many people in critical and highly trained positions which is to the detriment of the military

The only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn is that the policy, which was flawed from the get go, needs to be revised so that there is no punitive measure attached to one's sexual orientation. Whatever training measures must be implemented to make sure there is a smooth transition, such as educating service members about tolerance of diversity, should be done prior to any new policy taking effect. Finally, there should be serious consequences for any assault or harassment of gay service members. As someone stated earlier, if you have a problem serving with gays and lesbians, then you are the one who shouldn't be serving.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Gays in Military - up for review
Posted: 7/30/2008 1:09:29 PM
I got that figure from the NPR story, the Sargeant who was interviewed was asked how he came up with the number. He sited a well-respected research firm that did statistical regression which resulted in that number (I don't remember the name of the firm, but you can go listen at NPR). Even if the number were half that, my point stands affirmed. Gays have always served in the military, and they currently serve in the military. However they must live secretly, in fear that they will lose their careers if anyone finds out. It is not special rights they are asking for, just the right to not have their jobs threatened because of their sexual orientation. No one else has to serve with such constraints. It is an issue of equality under the law and allowing them their personhood. It shouldn't be that controversial, but there are a lot of ill-informed, insecure and ignorant people in the world, including in the military. I assume the majority are good people who could care less about what someone else does in the bedroom.
 Green Sangha
Joined: 3/12/2008
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Gays in Military - up for review
Posted: 7/30/2008 12:35:38 PM
It's not "special" rights, it's EQUAL RIGHTS. And of course it is fear, anxiety, discomfort, all of which are on a spectrum related to fear. Deny it, but it doesn't change the obvious which is that you are highly uncomfortable with gays serving alongside straights, despite the fact that they currently do so, a fact you haven't been able to refute.

You aren't up to the caliber of kind of discourse I like to be a part of as you keep repeating the same thing without proving your part. If you would address specifically the fact that gays currently serve without it causing problems I would appreciate it. There is no reason there would be any more problems than there are now if "don't ask don't tell" were removed. And don't raise the spector of gay rape...it really isn't an issue except in prison and that is straight men who, without access to women, rape other men. It's really straight men we should all be afraid of.
 
Show ALL Forums